Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Clin Infect Dis ; 2022 Jun 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1901150

ABSTRACT

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants raised questions regarding the durability of immune responses after homologous or heterologous booster vaccination after Ad26.COV2.S priming. We found that SARS-CoV-2-specific binding antibodies, neutralizing antibodies and T-cells are detectable 5 months after boosting, although waning of antibodies and limited cross-reactivity with Omicron BA.1 was observed.

2.
N Engl J Med ; 386(10): 951-963, 2022 03 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1642068

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Ad26.COV2.S vaccine, which was approved as a single-shot immunization regimen, has been shown to be effective against severe coronavirus disease 2019. However, this vaccine induces lower severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein (S)-specific antibody levels than those induced by messenger RNA (mRNA)-based vaccines. The immunogenicity and reactogenicity of a homologous or heterologous booster in persons who have received an Ad26.COV2.S priming dose are unclear. METHODS: In this single-blind, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving health care workers who had received a priming dose of Ad26.COV2.S vaccine, we assessed immunogenicity and reactogenicity 28 days after a homologous or heterologous booster vaccination. The participants were assigned to receive no booster, an Ad26.COV2.S booster, an mRNA-1273 booster, or a BNT162b2 booster. The primary end point was the level of S-specific binding antibodies, and the secondary end points were the levels of neutralizing antibodies, S-specific T-cell responses, and reactogenicity. A post hoc analysis was performed to compare mRNA-1273 boosting with BNT162b2 boosting. RESULTS: Homologous or heterologous booster vaccination resulted in higher levels of S-specific binding antibodies, neutralizing antibodies, and T-cell responses than a single Ad26.COV2.S vaccination. The increase in binding antibodies was significantly larger with heterologous regimens that included mRNA-based vaccines than with the homologous booster. The mRNA-1273 booster was most immunogenic and was associated with higher reactogenicity than the BNT162b2 and Ad26.COV2.S boosters. Local and systemic reactions were generally mild to moderate in the first 2 days after booster administration. CONCLUSIONS: The Ad26.COV2.S and mRNA boosters had an acceptable safety profile and were immunogenic in health care workers who had received a priming dose of Ad26.COV2.S vaccine. The strongest responses occurred after boosting with mRNA-based vaccines. Boosting with any available vaccine was better than not boosting. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development ZonMw; SWITCH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04927936.).


Subject(s)
/immunology , Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Immunization, Secondary , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Immunoglobulin G/blood , /immunology , Adult , Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Female , Humans , Interferon-gamma/blood , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Single-Blind Method , T-Lymphocytes/immunology
4.
Lancet Healthy Longev ; 2(3): e163-e170, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1284653

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the scarcity of resources has necessitated triage of critical care for patients with the disease. In patients aged 65 years and older, triage decisions are regularly based on degree of frailty measured by the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). However, the CFS could also be useful in patients younger than 65 years. We aimed to examine the association between CFS score and hospital mortality and between CFS score and admission to intensive care in adult patients of all ages with COVID-19 across Europe. METHODS: This analysis was part of the COVID Medication (COMET) study, an international, multicentre, retrospective observational cohort study in 63 hospitals in 11 countries in Europe. Eligible patients were aged 18 years and older, had been admitted to hospital, and either tested positive by PCR for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or were judged to have a high clinical likelihood of having SARS-CoV-2 infection by the local COVID-19 expert team. CFS was used to assess level of frailty: fit (CFS1-3), mildly frail (CFS4-5), or frail (CFS6-9). The primary outcome was hospital mortality. The secondary outcome was admission to intensive care. Data were analysed using a multivariable binary logistic regression model adjusted for covariates (age, sex, number of drugs prescribed, and type of drug class as a proxy for comorbidities). FINDINGS: Between March 30 and July 15, 2020, 2434 patients (median age 68 years [IQR 55-77]; 1480 [61%] men, 954 [30%] women) had CFS scores available and were included in the analyses. In the total sample and in patients aged 65 years and older, frail patients and mildly frail patients had a significantly higher risk of hospital mortality than fit patients (total sample: CFS6-9 vs CFS1-3 odds ratio [OR] 2·71 [95% CI 2·04-3·60], p<0·0001 and CFS4-5 vs CFS1-3 OR 1·54 [1·16-2·06], p=0·0030; age ≥65 years: CFS6-9 vs CFS1-3 OR 2·90 [2·12-3·97], p<0·0001 and CFS4-5 vs CFS1-3 OR 1·64 [1·20-2·25], p=0·0020). In patients younger than 65 years, an increased hospital mortality risk was only observed in frail patients (CFS6-9 vs CFS1-3 OR 2·22 [1·08-4·57], p=0·030; CFS4-5 vs CFS1-3 OR 1·08 [0·48-2·39], p=0·86). Frail patients had a higher incidence of admission to intensive care than fit patients (CFS6-9 vs CFS1-3 OR 1·54 [1·21-1·97], p=0·0010), whereas mildly frail patients had a lower incidence than fit patients (CFS4-5 vs CFS1-3 OR 0·71 [0·55-0·92], p=0·0090). Among patients younger than 65 years, frail patients had an increased incidence of admission to intensive care (CFS6-9 vs CFS1-3 OR 2·96 [1·98-4·43], p<0·0001), whereas mildly frail patients had no significant difference in incidence compared with fit patients (CFS4-5 vs CFS1-3 OR 0·93 [0·63-1·38], p=0·72). Among patients aged 65 years and older, frail patients had no significant difference in the incidence of admission to intensive care compared with fit patients (CFS6-9 vs CFS1-3 OR 1·27 [0·92-1·75], p=0·14), whereas mildly frail patients had a lower incidence than fit patients (CFS4-5 vs CFS1-3 OR 0·66 [0·47-0·93], p=0·018). INTERPRETATION: The results of this study suggest that CFS score is a suitable risk marker for hospital mortality in adult patients with COVID-19. However, treatment decisions based on the CFS in patients younger than 65 years should be made with caution. FUNDING: LOEY Foundation.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL